Neocons, Paleocons, Winners and Losers

The biggest loser in yesterday’s vote is clearly the immigration restrictionist wing of the GOP. It is fairly clear that its argument that the Latino vote was not that critical, once quite demonstrably true, is true no longer. There may actually now be a “McGovern majority” of liberals and minorities — as Rod Dreher pointed out — which did not yet exist in 2000 or 2004. While we all have learned much from Steve Sailer, his argument that the GOP should follow a white-based electoral strategy is now simply doomed.

It is now evident that the last chance for prudent (and GOP saving) immigration restriction was the late 1990s. Then it could have been bipartisan: the late Barbara Jordan, a popular black congresswoman from Texas who was aware of the problems a large influx of new low-wage immigrants posed for America’s actually existing low-income workers, was a willing partner. But the restrictionist coalition was outmaneuvered, in some cases simply overwhelmed.

The neoconservatives waged during those years a fierce campaign against restrictionist leadership at the elite level, letting William F. Buckley know in no uncertain terms that they considered John O’Sullivan’s and Peter Brimelow’s trumpeting of the “national question” in National Review evocative of the most pernicious of anti-Semitic tropes. National Review changed editors. Other conservatives who supported immigration restriction lost their jobs as well.

Immigration restrictionism survived of course, pushed to the Internet. But once immigration restriction became a semi-populist cause, and took on, in some instances, a racialist tinge, it was finished. Perhaps there will arrive a day when the political leadership of American Latinos and Asians decide that America is crowded enough. Until then, no Republican leader is going to go near “self-deportation” or anything resembling it.

There is an irony here: for the other big loser in the election is the pro-Israeli right of American politics, especially the very neocons who trounced the restrictionists in the late 1990s. They bet heavily on Romney, and have come up empty. Sheldon Adelson was zero for six on the races he got involved in. The millions of new immigrant voters show precious little interest in the imperial foreign policy the neocons want, and indeed, many of their children have become leaders of pro-Palestine politics on American campuses. No small irony.

What is a Buchananite from the nineties to make of this mixed result? America is clearly, irrevocably, moving past it Europeanist stage. And is likely, perhaps for that very reason, to be as little inclined to imperialist “nation-building” projects as at any time since the 19th century. Add social issues to the mix. Clearly the election results point to the left. Gay marriage seems inevitable, for one thing. And yet one reason to oppose gay marriage was that it seemed a sort of assault on the institution of traditional marriage. But is that true? Was it ever? David Blankenhorn has recently been making the argument that the troubled, weakening institution of marriage actually needs the support of new people who want to join it, grow it, etc. I increasingly suspect he is right. In any case, we are going to find out.

I hope to see Obama move “left” on foreign policy — wind down the drone wars, push hard for a Palestinian state (if it’s not too late; if it is, we can begin to talk about voting rights for all the people in one state), explore the possibility of a detente with Iran. And move to the right on fiscal issues — revisit Simpson-Bowles, see if Romney (who gave an extraordinarily gracious concession speech) really does have any good ideas on entitlement reform. Part of the very large anti-Obama vote is based on serious worry about the deficits, about becoming “like Greece”. If Obama leaves office with a deficit larger than the present one, he will be failed president no matter what else he does.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 26 comments

26 Responses to Neocons, Paleocons, Winners and Losers

“The biggest loser in yesterday’s vote is clearly the immigration restrictionist wing of the GOP. ”

Maybe I missed it — did Romney stress (or even suggest) putting more agents on the borders? Making e-verify mandatory nationally? Restricting legal immigration? Reforming the system under which immigrants qualify for admission? Did he attack Obama’s administrative ‘Dream’ amnesty?

I do know he wanted to ‘staple a greencard’ to every foreign student who graduates from an American university. I do know that ‘self-deportation’, to the extent he suggested it, is pretty much a non-policy without promising increasing workplace enforcements. I do know he signaled pretty strongly that he would try, as Bush and McCain did before him, to get another so-called ‘comprehensive immigration reform’, with the signaling done by Marco Rubio.

As for the ‘racialism’ — sure it is there. But the post claims that the ‘Latino’ and ‘Asian’ political leadership now hold immigration policy hostage. Isn’t that racialist?

I for one take heart in the fact that Republicans still control the House — the only body nationally where there are true restrictionists. I hope, and indeed believe, they will deny Obama’s coming attempt to legalize 10 million illegal immigrants. I also not that Joe Arpaio won yet another term in Maricopa.

There is no where to go on immigration. The business wing of the GOP wants it, case closed. Conservatives haven’t made the argument for restriction with any discipline, common sense or charity. McConnell is dead on, it took on too much racist hysteria and yahooism to go forward.

Plus a mature no nonsense take on immigration would have to take on NAFTA and free trade and the issue of wage suppression, not just the endless calls to “get tough”on whatever issue is alarming Republicans. I don’t think conservative radio is up to that task.
Many whites in California and the southwest have grown accustomed to a large Mexican/Central American presence in their communities. The South is another question.

Immigration restrictionism cannot have been the “big loser” when it had no champion at the national level.

In the primaries Romney made sympathetic noises, but then he dropped the subject. I paid attention, and to this day couldn’t list real differences between Obama’s stated position and Romney’s. End the end it was all dog whistle from both parties. Further, a number of restrictionists won state and local elections, and no one overtly campaigned either for either immigration or for another amnesty.

This means that what you call “the other big loser” was actually the REALLY big loser: the Weekly Standard / Sheldon Adelson / AIPAC wing of the GOP. Differences over war with Iran and how far to bend over for Bibi were at least discernible to the trained eye.

More broadly, we weren’t offered a choice last night. We were offered more gruel. And “more gruel” is what we’ll be eating for the next two years.

To the Israel-first traitors in the Republican Party: You seem to have gotten what was important to you – a crazy racist warmonger in charge of Israel, at the cost of getting beaten here in America. Oh, that’s not what you wanted? Then drop the bizarre obsession with an unimportant faraway country, and focus on America.

Related: One lesson of last night is that the Israel lobby may have money, but it can’t deliver votes. If votes are what you want, dump them now.

So have we all figured out that promising more war in the Middle East is not a winning strategy yet?

And it’s at that point that the Big Business wing of the GOP realizes that the xenophobic wing is no longer useful, and does what they couldn’t do in 2006–get rid of them. Foot soldiers are needed, and I’ve always believed that the powers-that-be would have to decide between the socons and xenophobes. Since it’s easier to make the socons look more positive/less threatening, I think they get the nod.

Immigration restriction as an issue did not lose last night. A number of restrictionist or moderately restrictionist Democrats won tough races: Donnelly, Tester, McCaskill in the Senate races, Barrow, McIntyre, and some other moderate Dems in House races. Open-borders Connie Mack in Florida lost badly; Mandel in Ohio, who did not talk about immigration against open-borders Sherrod Brown, also lost; among other races where Republicans failed to put the immigration issue to their advantage.

Romney did not lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Hampshire because of immigration or any Hispanic tidal wave. He lost because of economic issues and fears of a return to Bush foreign policy.

We can talk about the short comings of the Romney campaign all we want, what blocks voted for what candidate, who pandered to whom, etc.

The truth is very simple. America is now a country where the voting majority is receiving entitlements, tax breaks, or some sort of government assistance. They will vote for the hand that is feeding them.

The tide has turned in the USA. A self-reliant voting majority is a thing of the past.

I’m sorry? When did Mitt Romney ever run on anything even remotely resembling immigration restrictionism? Did anyone take his remark about “self-deportation” to be anything more than a perfunctory gesture to those who are none too happy about mass immigration?
From the numbers I saw last night, I gather that about 72% percent of those voted were white, and about 10% were Hispanic. The Sailer strategy, in other words, is still applicable.

From the numbers I saw last night, I gather that about 72% percent of those voted were white, and about 10% were Hispanic. The Sailer strategy, in other words, is still applicable.

From that 72%, you need to subtract those whites that are or lean liberal; and are thus turned off (if not outright opposed to) policies they view as racist. What remains is well less than 50%.

The interesting question: If Romney had taken a harder line on immigration, would he have won? I suspect not: the places where such a position would be beneficial are mainly safe red states. It would have damaged him in those states with significant Latino populations (which he lost anyway, save Arizona and Texas); and probably been a “meh” in the swing states of the industrial Midwest, where Latino immigration is miniscule; and the threats to people’s livelihoods is mainly outsourcing as opposed to wage competition from migrants.

Romney did try to put on a protectionist hat, particularly in the last two debates; but given his pro-business paper trail, utterly nobody believed him.

“Romney did not lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Hampshire because of immigration or any Hispanic tidal wave. He lost because of economic issues and fears of a return to Bush foreign policy.”

The Republicans, as noted, aren’t really anti-immigration or anti-immigrant, but the media which was in the tank for Obama from the beginning painted them as such. Unfortunately, advertising works and people are more moved by perception than reality. The actual Republican line on immigration is just nation-of-immigrants boilerplate, much to the consternation of actual restrictionists.

Pete Wilson got 64% of the white vote in California. That 64% would have included a large number of moderates. Had Romney gotten 64% of the white vote in Ohio, he would have won. The sort of whites that get into a tizzy over immigration restriction or opposition to affirmative action aren’t going to vote Republican anyway. And it’s not like all Latinos are opposed to immigration enforcement — Wilson got 24% of their vote in 1994, even after a huge campaign of demonization.

@Noah172–appreciate the helpful, informative comment. The subject needs more fleshing out. But in a way, an electorate with more relatively poor immigrants will tend more Democratic no matter what the GOP says or does. And as you imply, Dems are often more informed and more restrictionist than Republicans.

To be fair, there was one immigration restriction loss, in Maryland where voters voted to give in state college tuition to illegal alien children who graduate from their high schools, though the measure had a whole bunch of other restrictions too.

It is stunning how conservatives are going on and on about Hispanics and ignoring the (female) elephant in the room. Close to *eighty* percent of single women voted for Obama! And in case no one has noticed, not all of these women are single because they are degenerates: they are getting married *later*, like their male peers, because they, like their male peers, are taking time to pursue educations and careers. Now can anyone guess why single women might have preferred the Democrats, hmmm?

Of course we need rational but compassionate immigration policies. Obama increased deportations with a focus on those guilty of criminal acts, but supported the Dream Act. Works for me.

Now can anyone guess why single women might have preferred the Democrats, hmmm?

Because Democrats will underwrite the loans that pay for their worthless degrees.

On the bright side, their horrific fertility will solve this problem in time. If you think it’s fun to ridicule the GOP geezers, wait until these future cat meals start buying the organic, whole grain farm.

I may be emotionally gratifying to claim Hispanics are welfare entitlement loving big government etc types – but maybe it is time to start dealing with reality – Hispanics start businesses at a higher rate than non- Hispanics and they go to college at a higher rate – so what we have is a hard working group of people (like many of our previous immigrants) who are settling into the mainstream. The company that cuts my grass is owned by a Hispanic who came here 15 yrs ago – worked his rear off to start what is now a prosperous business – when I needed some work done in my home – it was a Hispanic contractor who gave me the best bid, did a great job and even cleaned up. In short – many Hispanics are exactly the sort of hard working entepreneurial folks we need. As for entitlements – face it – the government is bad meme is part of what got defeated last night. People want government when it does a good job – they want help getting through college, they want affordable health insurance, and other good government programs. This is a meme that needs abandoning – replace it with a commitment to eliminate government programs that are ineffective. I live in NJ and the damage from Sandy is truly biblical – how well do you think a Republican position that FEMA should be dismantled played here?

The same nitwits who told you Romney would win and that the Iraq war was a nifty idea are now claiming it is Hispanics that cost Romney the election. Why believe them? It is so much easier to claim something out of their control cost them – rather than face the unhappy truth – Americans do not want anymore interventionist wars – they do not want tax cuts for the wealthy – deal with that.

As for immigration -t he US is avoiding the demographic death spiral Europe is in because of immigration. If you want rational immigration policy – then work for it. Restrict immigration to those who have the skills our economy needs. Screen out those with criminal backgrounds better. But understand that unless native born Americans have more kids – than we need immigration. If nothing else – immigration is necessary to supply us with the engineers we need – cause too many native born kids major in sports management or communications in college instead of hard sciences.

Cecilia, Hispanics may start businesses at a higher rate than non-Hispanics in America, but it also documented that Hispanics here have FAR higher rates of illegitimate (out-of-wedlock) births, chronic poverty, unemployment, and incarceration than do white and asian americans. They are an enormous net financial burden to American taxpayers, and they are failing to assimilate and become loyal to America in large numbers.

That is demonstrably false. It is true that Hispanic college enrollment has been skyrocketing even in proportional terms, but it is still below that of whites and far below that of Asians. Moreover, the increase in enrollment is driven by Hispanics taking classes at community colleges, not four year institutions. That’s great, but face it, a lot of them aren’t going to complete a degree.

” The company that cuts my grass is owned by a Hispanic who came here 15 yrs ago – worked his rear off to start what is now a prosperous business ”

That is exactly the problem. A guy that cuts grass — a job that could be done by a twelve year old — is not a plus to an advanced industrial economy. He and his household are net costs. That is why California is a fiscal mess right now, we have 35 year old grass cutters and hamburger flippers who have three kids in the school system ($10,000/year per kid) and getting ‘free’ meals.

If your health permits, you should try cutting your own grass with a push mower, good for fitness, and doesn’t socialize costs onto all of us.

M-Young, I think the comparison with the GOP of Pete Wilson on California is not really a good one. While the pure numbers may be accurate, but the GOP of the Wilson, or Dukmajian era was a very different party than the one we have today, especially in California where the GOP seems to have gone insane. I mean the whole impeachment and coronation of Arnie was really the suicide moment for the party. I.e. the moment when they lost all sense of seriousness, or any claim to be taken serious.

Actually, correction. The GOP in California AFTER Pete Wilson should be a cautionary tale for the rest of the GOP. Doubling down on bad policy, and then blaming everyone including the voters for your troubles is a pretty good recipe to drive your party into obscurity and meaninglessness.

“It is fairly clear that its argument that the Latino vote was not that critical, once quite demonstrably true, is true no longer. There may actually now be a “McGovern majority” of liberals and minorities – as Rod Dreher pointed out – which did not yet exist in 2000 or 2004. While we all have learned much from Steve Sailer, his argument that the GOP should follow a white-based electoral strategy is now simply doomed.”

Scott, you get it exactly backwards. The message of last nights election is that Republicans and conservatives who are not immigration restrictionists either have a death wish or can’t do simple math. Halting current demographic trends is essential to the GOP remaining viable at the national level.

The GOP would win every national election if white people in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. voted like whites in Nebraska, Kansas and Alabama.

“While the pure numbers may be accurate, but the GOP of the Wilson, or Dukmajian era was a very different party than the one we have today, especially in California where the GOP seems to have gone insane.”

Bob Jones, you are buying into The Narrative. Last election the party nominated two moderate, pro-choice women for governor and Senator. The *recall* (not impeachment) was not a Republican Party initiative, but more the work of one Congressman, Issa. Arnold was not by any means a party player with the Republicans.

“The GOP would win every national election if white people in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. voted like whites in Nebraska, Kansas and Alabama.”

I think this is not only right but the most salient fact I’ve seen in all this talk both here and elsewhere concerning the racial and ethnic aspects of current voting, which indeed absolutely guts that tsunami of what seems the instantly received alleged wisdom that we unfortunately are seeing too much of here even.

I forget where (damnit, since I esp. don’t want to be wrong on this) but I saw somewhere that if you could have changed something like a mere 300,000 votes here and there (I think it was that small) strategically in those esp. “white” states like Wisconsin, Ohio and etc. Romney would have The Big Chair.

And if you could have changed something like 500,000-700,000 it would have been an absolute electoral college landslide for Romney.

Given how Reagan managed to flip all sorts of usual Dem voters like staunch union folks in the *millions*—or, to put it Red Phillips way, when whites in places like Wisconsin and Ohio and etc. did vote like whites in Nebraska and etc.—this seems to me to just *utterly* undercut all the tons of commentary we are hearing about how it’s impossible for the GOP to ever win again without hugely increasing its take of the hispanic or black vote.